[DV Act] Victim's Sole Testimony Reliable For Conviction As Ill-Treatment Happens In Confines Of House: Kerala High Court Reiterates
While considering a cruelty case lodged against a husband and his kin, the Kerala High Court observed that sole evidence of a domestic violence victim is reliable for conviction in such cases as often ill-treatment and harassment happens within the confines of the house.The court however underscored that the testimony can be relied on as sole evidence for conviction provided it is convincing...
While considering a cruelty case lodged against a husband and his kin, the Kerala High Court observed that sole evidence of a domestic violence victim is reliable for conviction in such cases as often ill-treatment and harassment happens within the confines of the house.
The court however underscored that the testimony can be relied on as sole evidence for conviction provided it is convincing and reliable. In the facts of the present case, the high court acquitted the husband, kin in a Section 498-A IPC case, holding that the main allegation of forced abortion was not proved and that other allegations remained unsubstantiated.
The high court noted that to prove the acts of cruelty, the prosecution had virtually relied upon the sole evidence of the wife.
Justice Jobin Sebastian in his order while considering the question whether the solitary evidence of the wife can form the basis for a conviction in a cases of such nature, said:
"...it is to be noted that, in cases relating to domestic violences, it is not prudent to look for independent corroboration for the evidence of a victim, particularly when the incidents of domestic violence including ill-treatments and harassments often occur within the confines of a house. Therefore, I am of the view that there is nothing wrong in relying on the solitary evidence of PW1 in entering into a conviction, provided the evidence is convincing and reliable".
The appellants–husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law had approached the High Court challenging their conviction by the Additional Sessions Court which had sentenced them to 1 year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000 each.
According to the prosecution, the complainant married the first accused on 28 March 2004. She alleged that she was harassed for insufficient dowry, her gold ornaments and cash were misappropriated, and that her husband, at the instigation of his parents, forced her to undergo an abortion against her will by administering pills.
While the trial court acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 313 (causing miscarriage), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 506(i) (criminal intimidation) IPC for want of evidence, it convicted them under Section 498-A IPC, relying mainly on the solitary testimony of the complainant.
The high court observed that while solitary evidence can be sufficient in domestic violence cases, it must be reliable and inspire confidence.
The Court found that there was no convincing evidence that the accused had misappropriated the gold ornaments or cash, as these had been voluntarily entrusted. The allegation of physical assault was unsupported by medical evidence or independent corroboration.
Crucially, the forced abortion claim was contradicted by the deposition of the treating doctor (PW4). Medical records showed that the complainant was diagnosed with a missed abortion (where the fetus was already dead) when she approached the hospital before the alleged forced administration of pills.
The Court noted significant inconsistencies in the complainant's version and pointed out that she did not disclose the forced abortion to her doctor or her mother when first admitted to hospital, raising doubts about the truthfulness of this claim.
Citing the statutory explanation to Section 498-A IPC, the high court reiterated that not every instance of harassment and ill-treatment amounts to cruelty; it further said that it was also not true that a series of acts of cruelty is needed to prove cruelty wherein a single act may be sufficient if it is severe enough.
"In essence, not every instance of harassment and ill-treatment amounts to cruelty. Only those acts that fall within the 1st and the 2nd limb of the explanation to Section 498-A, defining cruelty, would qualify as acts of cruelty for the purpose of Section 498-A of IPC. Petty quarrels between spouses in a family do not amount to cruelty. Such disagreements are inherent to family life, as husbands and wives, being human, are prone to differences of opinion and trivial verbal altercations. These natural occurrences, by themselves, do not amount to cruelty. Likewise, a single instance of harassment generally does not constitute an offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. However, it cannot be said in absolute terms that a series of acts of cruelty is always needed to prove cruelty. A single act may suffice for a conviction under Section 498-A of IPC, if it is severe enough to meet the legal definition of cruelty".
Referring to the core allegation, the high court observed:
“I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the accused administered pills forcefully, and this act led to a miscarriage. As the main act of cruelty alleged by the prosecution is unproven, convicting the accused under Section 498-A IPC would be unjustified, especially since the other alleged acts of cruelty remain unsubstantiated.”
Setting aside the trial court's conviction, the High Court acquitted all three accused of all charges and directed that any fine amount deposited be refunded in accordance with law.
Case title: Sajudheen & Ors v. Sub Inspector of Police & Anr
Case No.: CRL.A NO. 2913 OF 2008
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 440
Counsel for the Appellant: ADV SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
Counsel for State: Sr. Public Prosecutor Sri. Alex M. Thombra